Literature DB >> 22009562

The volume-outcome relation in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Michel W J M Wouters1, Gea A Gooiker, Johanna W van Sandick, Rob A E M Tollenaar.   

Abstract

This study was undertaken to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on the relation between procedural volume and outcome of esophagectomies. A systematic search was carried out to identify articles investigating effects of hospital or surgeon volume on short-term and long-term outcomes published between 1995 and 2010. Articles were scrutinized for methodological quality, and after inclusion of only high-quality studies, a meta-analysis assuming a random effects model was done to estimate the effect of higher volume on patient outcome. Heterogeneity in study results was evaluated with an I(2) -test and risk of publication bias with an Egger regression intercept. Forty-three studies were found. Sixteen studies met the strict inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis on hospital volume and postoperative mortality and 4 studies on hospital volume and survival. The pooled estimated effect size was significant for high-volume providers in the analysis of postoperative mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.89-2.80) and in the survival analysis (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.30). The meta-analysis of surgical volume and outcome showed no significant results. Studies in which the results were adjusted not only for patient characteristics but also for tumor characteristics and urgency of the operation showed a stronger correlation between hospital volume and mortality. Also, studies performed on data from the United States showed higher effect sizes. The evidence for hospital volume as an important determinant of outcome in esophageal cancer surgery is strong. Concentration of procedures in high-volume hospitals with a dedicated setting for the treatment of esophageal cancer might lead to an overall improvement in patient outcome.
Copyright © 2011 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22009562     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26383

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  47 in total

1.  Inter-institutional survival heterogeneity in chemoradiation therapy for esophageal cancer: exploratory analysis of the JCOG0303 study.

Authors:  Yasuo Hamamoto; Junki Mizusawa; Hiroshi Katayama; Kenichi Nakamura; Ken Kato; Yasuhiro Tsubosa; Satoshi Ishikura; Hiroyasu Igaki; Masayuki Shinoda; Haruhiko Fukuda; Yuko Kitagawa; Nobutoshi Ando
Journal:  Jpn J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-01-31       Impact factor: 3.019

2.  Oncologist volume and outcomes in older adults diagnosed with diffuse large B cell lymphoma.

Authors:  Scott F Huntington; Jessica R Hoag; Weiwei Zhu; Rong Wang; Amer M Zeidan; Smith Giri; Nikolai A Podoltsev; Steven D Gore; Xiaomei Ma; Cary P Gross; Amy J Davidoff
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 3.  Quality Management and Key Performance Indicators in Oncologic Esophageal Surgery.

Authors:  Ines Gockel; Constantin Johannes Ahlbrand; Michael Arras; Elke Maria Schreiber; Hauke Lang
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  [Economic aspects of oncological esophageal surgery : Centralization is essential].

Authors:  N von Dercks; I Gockel; M Mehdorn; D Lorenz
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 0.955

5.  Hospital type- and volume-outcome relationships in esophageal cancer patients receiving non-surgical treatments.

Authors:  Po-Kuei Hsu; Hui-Shan Chen; Bing-Yen Wang; Shiao-Chi Wu; Chao-Yu Liu; Chih-Hsun Shih; Chia-Chuan Liu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-01-28       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Provider impact on survival outcomes in the management of malignant disease.

Authors:  Maurie Markman
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 5.075

7.  Achieving minimum caseload requirements--an analysis of hospital discharge data from 2005-2011.

Authors:  Dirk Peschke; Ulrike Nimptsch; Thomas Mansky
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2014-08-18       Impact factor: 5.594

8.  Evolution of standardized clinical pathways: refining multidisciplinary care and process to improve outcomes of the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Sheraz R Markar; Henner Schmidt; Sonia Kunz; Artur Bodnar; Michal Hubka; Donald E Low
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 3.452

9.  Characterizing the role of a high-volume cancer resection ecosystem on low-volume, high-quality surgical care.

Authors:  Anai N Kothari; Barbara A Blanco; Sarah A Brownlee; Ann E Evans; Victor A Chang; Gerard J Abood; Raffaella Settimi; Daniela S Raicu; Paul C Kuo
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2016-08-11       Impact factor: 3.982

10.  Multimodal cancer care in poor prognosis cancers: Resection drives long-term outcomes.

Authors:  Mark A Healy; Huiying Yin; Sandra L Wong
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 3.454

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.